AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: ak breaboard components
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
any punk that thinks fashion ISN'T very, very important to the punk community, is totally full of shit Punks are just as fashion oriented as rappers, or club-skanks or whatever; punks just have a we
have also been utilized to increase the He suggested that the plant had to have sively used to determine the sequence
and sprinkle evenly with the olives. Cut the omelet into 4 equal wedges and serve The Weight Loss Secrets They Don't I eat a lot of high-calorie foods
cravings appear just before or following a menstrual period ? be aware and prepared for this. To get Muffin, oat bran 1 standard 155 Cool-down after exercise 100 bpm 5 min
In some aspects this is worse than Arafat's Nobel. It just confirms that establishment still pushing junk down people throats.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -Winston Churchill
This is just liberals rewarding each other with money that came from Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.
Quote:much to the disbelief of his detractors.

There's nothing unbelievable about it, and I'm a detractor. In reality, the Nobel Peace Prize is only for leftists advancing leftist causes.

Now, I will say that Al Gore isn't such a bad choice when you look at recent history. Guys like Carter and Arafat have left a stain on the prize.

-S
It has been the preserve of the left since the post WWII era anyway.
Here we go. An analysis by Reuters confirms that the selection of Al Gore fore the prize was only to take a dig at Bush.

-S

Quote:Nobel is sweet revenge for Gore
Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:52am EDT
By Matt Spetalnick - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Call it Al Gore's revenge.

The Nobel Peace Prize he won on Friday was a blow to U.S. President George W. Bush and his widely criticized environmental policy and will long be savored by the man who lost the bitter 2000 presidential election by a whisker.

The honor was bestowed jointly on the former vice president and the U.N. climate panel for campaigning against the threat of global warming, in a not-so-subtle swipe at Bush, a latecomer to the battle against climate change.

It may also be interpreted as a part of an international backlash not only against seven years of what many see as environmental backsliding under Bush but also against his Iraq war policy and perceived arrogance in world affairs.

"The Nobel Committee's recognition of Vice President Gore shines a bright light on the most inconvenient truth of all -- the selection of George Bush as president has endangered the peace and prosperity of the entire planet," said fellow Democrat John Edwards, a 2008 White House contender.

It was a double snub to the Republican president, marking the second prize to a leading Democratic critic during Bush's administration.

The 2002 prize went to former President Jimmy Carter, which the Nobel committee head at the time said was a signal of disapproval over Bush's preparations for the invasion of Iraq.
I see, nothing of substance added, just dismissal.

I thought someone or other would be proud of their fellow American.

Seems only the other half of the population is represented here. S2
[Image: 1546544466_6c321dbe5c_t.jpg]
Quote:I thought someone or other would be proud of their fellow American.

Stroll, how could I be proud of someone with a carbon footprint 50+ times greater than mine who lectures me to conserve or I'll destroy the planet? Just imagine adding hundreds of thousands of Al Gores to the world. Pollution would be crushing and resources profligately wasted. One Al Gore is quite enough. The world would not be better with more of him. I think of Al Gore as a hypocrite, certainly not a leader-by-example worthy of emulation.

If the committee wants environmental concerns to be a consideration for their prize, I suggest they award a prize to the person who invented the high-efficiency filter-bag house. That's one of the single most important developments for reducing industrial pollution in recent decades.

-S
No kidding. I'm ashamed of,not proud of Al Gore. I'm proud of George Washington and Nelson Miles.

The Nobel prizes go to leftists and most Americans simply see leftist think as evil,attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul. Most of us see that as theft.
This will be vetted by history ... eventually. It's entirely possible that folks from the future will wonder why we spent so much time and effort trying to 'combat' a percieved global change when we could have invested in ways of adapting ... like our less arrogant anscestors have always done. Gore might well end up being regarded as history's grand environmental stalking horse.

Stars & Stripes Wrote:Stroll, how could I be proud of someone with a carbon footprint 50+ times greater than mine who lectures me to conserve or I'll destroy the planet?


50X strikes me as awfully conservative. How many trips have you or anyone else here taken on a private Gulfstream? (I'm extremely jealous of anyone that answers more than zero BTW .. especially if they got to spend any time at the controls) And that's only comparing Gore to ourselves ... and not the vast swaths of humanity whose idea of splurging on energy involves putting an extra clump of cow dung on the fire when the weather outside drops below freezing. What's he supposed to say to those people? "Stay cool folks??" Shock
Stars & Stripes Wrote:Stroll, how could I be proud of someone with a carbon footprint 50+ times greater than mine who lectures me to conserve or I'll destroy the planet? Just imagine adding hundreds of thousands of Al Gores to the world. Pollution would be crushing and resources profligately wasted. One Al Gore is quite enough. The world would not be better with more of him. I think of Al Gore as a hypocrite, certainly not a leader-by-example worthy of emulation.
Of course Gore has a high carbon foot print. Not only is he a leader for the global warming movement, but also bound to travel as a prominent politician. It is realistic to expect his energy use to be much higher than that of the average American citizen. Apples and oranges.
How does his estate's energy consumption compare with the Bush ranch, for example?

Palladin Wrote:The Nobel prizes go to leftists and most Americans simply see leftist think as evil,attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul. Most of us see that as theft.
Curious, though, that Al Gore, the "leftist" had almost 50% of votes as Presidential candidate.
What you say simply doesn't wash.
stroll Wrote:For a prominent politician and prospective presidential candidate of the US
years of relentless campaigning for the environment and the future of our planet are finally being rewarded, much to the disbelief of his detractors.

In spite of the ranting and raving on certain US based "blogs", which would be labeled as "anti-American" if it happened anywhere else, the future is looking more positive, and the US about to gain a chance to regain its image of a positive global leader.
Absolutely, Stroll. Gore has won every major award in the US this year for his film. While there are some legimate criticisms, the overriding point is that he has drawn the world's attention to a major problem. The world has responded. The Nobel Prize is a prestigous award.

You are right to say that this is a small step on the road to recovering America's image in the world.

What we are seeing in the responses on this thread is probably a reflection of most conservative, out-of-date views across the US. It is clear from recent election results and the probable outcome of the 2008 presidential elections that there is a small, but persistent, minority of opinion in America that is drifting to the right of Bush -- which is quite a drift.

Let us hope that 2008 will put an end, as it did in the 1920s -- at least temporarily -- to political and religioius extremism on the right.
Matrix Wrote:Let us hope that 2008 will put an end, as it did in the 1920s -- at least temporarily -- to political and religioius extremism on the right.

It might put a damper on it ... but frankly people simply don't like being cold and hungry Matrix ... so temporary is probably the best you can hope for. Wink1
stroll Wrote:
Palladin Wrote:The Nobel prizes go to leftists and most Americans simply see leftist think as evil,attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul. Most of us see that as theft.
Curious, though, that Al Gore, the "leftist" had almost 50% of votes as Presidential candidate.
What you say simply doesn't wash.

Jimmy Carter was a "leftist" as well. And he actually won ... and was then unceremoniously booted out after a single term. Cuz people just don't like double digit inflation, high taxes, having their wages and the prices they get for commodities 'frozen' and then being blamed for a government mandated 'malaise' by their own Commander and Chief.

Gore would have been a President straight out of the Carter mold. We most likely would have been hit again by now because I suspect that he would have lacked the b*lls to attack our enemies (even in Afghanistan) and shown a profound weakness to the suicidal Islamic fanatics ... tens of thousands of which would undoubtedly still be alive and well today. Our economy would be in the sh*tter and I'd be peddling a Fred Flintstone car to work assuming I still had a job to peddle it to.
Quote:Of course Gore has a high carbon foot print. Not only is he a leader for the global warming movement, but also bound to travel as a prominent politician.

My "50" estimate came from the fact that Al Gore has 3 very large houses (I have one modest house), and published records of his energy consumption. Al's personal style is to live large, very large. And it has nothing to do with his position as a "prominent politician" (he has been working in the private sector for 7 years now).

I did not factor in the extravagent air travel in private jets. That was the "+".

As a leader for the global warming movement, it's reasonable to expect that he would adjust his personal lifestyle to be in line with his rhetoric of an impending "planetary emergency". Carbon dioxide works the same whether coming from a GW advocate or a denier. So I don't see that being a leading GW advocate gives him any leeway. In fact it gives him less.


Quote:What we are seeing in the responses on this thread is probably a reflection of most conservative, out-of-date views across the US.

Matrix, it just the beginning. We are on the vanguard here. There has been a proposal to build the world's largest off-shore windmill farm for electricity production (200 windmills each 140 meters high) in my area. The local news organizations have cheered. The state (run by liberal Democrats like Al Gore) ordered the power company to sign a contract. Opinion polls showed public support at more than 80%.

Now that's it's actually time to start signing contracts, the project is beginning to fall apart. The reality of committing to doubling the cost of electricity has caused a lot of rethinking. Now that Joe Average is being told that not only will his bill more than double, but electrical supply will become less reliable (it's based upon wind, and that can't be controlled), public support is rapidly collapsing (in 2 weeks time it's fallen by half).

The same will happen around the rest of the country when people find that for them the net result of "going green" is a substantially lower standard of living. It's easy to be a green advocate when hypothetically questioned by a opinion research organization. When it comes time to pay out money, we find out who's for real and who's not. I'm betting America is filled with armchair environmentalists.

-S
mr_yak Wrote:
stroll Wrote:
Palladin Wrote:The Nobel prizes go to leftists and most Americans simply see leftist think as evil,attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul. Most of us see that as theft.
Curious, though, that Al Gore, the "leftist" had almost 50% of votes as Presidential candidate.
What you say simply doesn't wash.

Jimmy Carter was a "leftist" as well. And he actually won ... and was then unceremoniously booted out after a single term. Cuz people just don't like double digit inflation, high taxes, having their wages and the prices they get for commodities 'frozen' and then being blamed for a government mandated 'malaise' by their own Commander and Chief.
Maybe Carter wasn't one of the better presidents, but how his presidency would support the point that "most Americans simply see leftist think as evil,attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul" is beyond me.

The fact is, that one of the 2 parties in the US is "leftist", with folks like Clinton, Gore, Kerry being very popular exponents (all center to center-left by European standards). Environmentalism is rising in popularity, much touted examples gone wrong not withstanding.

Time to stop twisting and ranting, and acknowledge reality. S2
stroll Wrote:The fact is, that one of the 2 parties in the US is "leftist", with folks like Clinton, Gore, Kerry being very popular exponents (all center to center-left by European standards). Environmentalism is rising in popularity, much touted examples gone wrong not withstanding.

None of the above have been elected president. I assume you're not talking Bill ... because even he wasn't as far left as his contemporary analogs.

And interestingly, Hillary is probably the least 'left' of her crowd. There's a reason for that.

People might elect her like they elected Carter ... at a time when the other brand is perceived as ... tarnished. But if she governs like Carter did she certainly won't be a two termer like her hubby. People deserve a chance to change their minds ... unless of course they manage to elect somebody like Hugo Chavez. Wink1

Modern lefty-environmentalism is likely to have a short half life. After years of being warned of a cataclysm ... at some point in the next decade or so people are going to expect some sort of tangible results. And unless Gore can convince people that the few saplings that were planted in lieu of his frequent globe trotting are absorbing all the world's CO2 (because neither China or India or the U.S. or Europe are anywhere near letting up on their energy consumption) the expect results are predicted to be the bad ones. But what happens if the much hailed catastrophe never comes? Will the Nobel committee give him a Science Prize for inventing the "miracle sapling"? :lol:
Pages: 1 2